Yesterday's compilation of emails from readers responding to Rep. Charles Rangel's disparagement of American servicemen was so well received that we thought we'd publish another batch. We begin with Brian Boyd:
I am a 47-year-old meteorologist with a college degree. I have a good career and a family and lots of opportunities. On Sept. 12, 2001, I wrote the Air Force and volunteered to enlist and give up my job and all its benefits. I said I would serve anywhere they wanted me, whether in combat or at a weather station in Greenland.
Because of the volume of offers of enlistment from around the nation, the Air Force did not respond to me for several months, but they did respond. In that email, they thanked me for my offer, but unfortunately they had received so many such offers that they could not use me at that time.
My brother is an officer in the Air Force. He speaks four languages and has served in dangerous places around the world, including Bosnia and Baghdad. Our father was in the Navy and was in several Korean War battles. His brother served in World War II, in European battles. Both gave up opportunities for college in order to serve. They received their education later.
If the Air Force calls me today, I will walk away from my career and go where they tell me to go. I would consider it a privilege to be considered stupid and worthless by the likes of Rangel and Kerry.
Jack Sides is a member of what is sometimes called the "Greatest Generation":
I have no tip for you, but I offer my heartfelt thanks for the quotes from the serving military and family today. I am exceedingly tired of politicians who denigrate the military.
For the record I am an 83-year-old Air Force retiree who was a P-38 fighter pilot flying out of Italy in World War II. I have two master's degrees, I am a certified financial planner, and I am still actively working. And by the way, I qualified for and once belonged to Mensa.
I, too, wish that I could serve again.
Brian Patton has served more recently:
I am an Army sergeant who just returned from Iraq this past week. I myself enlisted within weeks of 9/11 and shipped out within days of graduating from the University of Texas four long years ago. In the time since, I've served in the infantry in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and spent many a patrol or mountain climb alongside some of the greatest men our country has to offer. Better men, I may add, than any of the ones I spent my carefree college years with. And in many ways, smarter too.
Charlie Rangel may think us too stupid to shine his shoes, but he wouldn't last five minutes in our chosen profession, physically or intellectually.
Patrick Shearin weighs in on the importance of strong political leadership:
I'm brought to tears reading the testimonials from the best and brightest that are currently serving in harm's way. As I read, I was viewing the film "Rocky," an all-time American classic, and for some reason the power and optimism of American youth overwhelmed me. I got my degree and I served and I chose combat arms (mechanized infantry--HUAH), but I did so in what was to be known as the Clinton years. Now I will grant you that I am a marked partisan, nonetheless, the impact of that C-in-C cannot be underestimated.
Myself, I conducted a recon-in-force and once I saw that the Clinton administration was going to leave matters like the Mog (the battle of Mogadishu) alone, I figured I was done. They were far more concerned about gay rights, Waco and Elian Gonzalez than us grunts. Just see what the Mog generals asked for and what they got! Les Aspin, RIP, shot them down, right before they were shot down. Not that the U.S. press cared. Funny how U.S. servicemen and our enemies pay the most attention to our suffering. I don't remember the barometer of Clinton's non-policies' effects on re-enlistment when I bailed! That was when nothing mattered (pre 9/11), but a lack of support and understanding from the home crowd.
I think that is a fundamental disconnect between those who serve and those who never will--what is the mission and what is the home mood. Most of us serve regardless, it is a matter of how long. The mission affects that--if it is worthy, so many will stick to it, some may not. But it is a strong beacon when there is a leader that will lead the home, when there is a president who will stand up and stand strong against what needs to be done. A serviceman is used to being ignored and misunderstood, but when his president stays with him, well, he never, ever forgets that.
I hope that President Bush knows that.
John Griffin describes some of the young servicemen-to-be he's encountered:
I am a professor of finance at Old Dominion University. ODU has a very active and large military science program (ROTC). The program has freshmen who wish to join the military after college and active military who have been selected to further their education. In the seven years that I have been at ODU, I have had a large number of students in my classes who are in the program. Let me say that these are some of the brightest, most polite and hardest-working students that I have had. It has been an honor to teach them. They make being their professor an honor. Knowing that these men and women will be running our military and our country someday makes me feel at peace with the future of our country.
However, the thought of Mr. Rangel and Mr. Kerry running the country scares me. Furthermore, these two should be ashamed of themselves for looking down on these fine young men and women. I will match my students' scholastic abilities with either one of these so called men any day. I would also like to say, thank you for standing up for our troops.
Andrew Macfayden has a pithy message for the congressman:
I am a former Navy pediatrician. I went to medical school on a Navy scholarship and was on active duty for five years. I served stateside during Gulf War I. I did my internship and residency at Bethesda Naval Hospital and was taught by many very fine doctors, all active duty. I was stationed at three different Navy hospitals and met hundreds and hundreds of military personnel, most of them enlisted.
All I can say is: Mr. Rangel, you're an idiot.
And Cliff Woodhall, though apparently not a doctor, wants to give Rangel a taste of his own medicine:
Both you and your readers have been pretty hard on Rangel over the past couple of days. A closer reading of his remarks suggests that he deserves our compassion, not our contempt. Rangel's words clearly reflect his act of lashing out. Most of us realize, from personal experience, that attacking the life choices made by others is quite often a way of expressing disappointment in one's own choices regarding life and career.
Mr. Rangel is, after all, a congressman, a job held in scorn, disparaged and disrespected by the general population, a constantly recurring punch line in the comic monologue of our late-night talk-show hosts. Most of a congressman's life between elections is spent "raising money" for his next election, "raising money" now being a phrase generally accepted in Washington as selling one's ability to write legislation to lobbyists, a procedure that involves, at best, compromising one's own most deeply held beliefs and, at worst, the acceptance of outright bribery. In short, it is not the sort of life that one dreams of when growing up.
It is generally acknowledged that an industrious person can earn more money working in the private sector than the public one. Sadly, however, it is a fact that America is a ruthless meritocracy, with the best and highest-paying jobs awarded to those who have the most talent or ability to perform them. Members of society who lack the skill to produce a product or provide a service for which others will pay money are forced to take whatever may be available in those jobs left over.
We don't know what sad circumstances, many perhaps not of his own choosing, have forced Mr. Rangel into his position as a congressman, but we can say with some certainty:
If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or selling himself out to the highest paying lobbyist so as to become a member of Congress, you can bet your life that he would not be in Congress. If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to spend their life arguing with each other and viciously maligning anyone with whom they disagree, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just to seize public funds for himself and his friends. And most of them come from backgrounds of very, very questionable ethical and moral circumstances, making it harder to get real jobs.
Indeed, the biography page on Rangel's Web site says that "he has spent his entire career in public service," the poor man. It turns out, moreover, that Rangel himself was in the military:
Congressman Rangel served in the U.S. Army from 1948-52, during which time he fought in Korea and was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star.
So maybe his contempt for American servicemen is actually a manifestation of his own self-loathing--that is, perhaps he is seeking to scapegoat the military for his own disappointments in life.
But this is unfair. Many people who serve in the military go on to be quite successful. "There seems to be more than a modicum of truth in the belief that military leaders make good corporate executives," IAfrica.com reported in July. According to a study by Korn/Ferry International, "companies led by CEOs with military experience have outperformed the S&P 500 index over the past three, five and ten-year periods by as much as 20 percentage points."
__________________
|